The Shooting That You Likely Didn't Hear About..... In Japan.

In a country known for draconian gun laws this some how happens.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...se-man-guns-unidentified-chinese-woman-tokyo/
Alot of anti-gunners believe that shootings will stop by enacting gun laws like this while countries like Australia and the U.K. have laws not dissimilar to Japan's and have seen a noted rise of in violent crime such as assault, armed robbery, and rape. So why are laws like this passed? Is it a fear by politicians of being seen as weak on crime or hesitant to pass a law. What say you ladys and gents.

 

....Question of frequency is still on the table though. I mean you disproved the E form yes (Gun laws lead to no gun deaths), but few couch it in such absolute terms.
I'm not digging the way the person implies court system jingoism (THEY'RE NOT PROTECTED LIKE IN THE CONSTITUTION, MY GOD I'M SURE IT'S A DICTATORSHIP GUYS), but eh that's not the point of the thread. I mean, I'm not saying it's blatant, but this person clearly wants to convey US court superiority. I mean yes, I'm sure Miranda rights aren't a thing there. You know where else they weren't a thing for a while, the US.
Note: I am really ambivalent on guns. There are certain things that bother me about politics, but this is not one of them. You might have noticed this in the form of me being upset at perceived jingoism in a thread about guns.

 

In the U.S. there are plenty of people that believe that a "ban leads to no guns". Plus I was really tired when wrote this so the wording could have been better. Personally I wonder what is going on in policy makers heads when they think these laws will work. The U.S. courts are pretty damn bad so they they are in no way superior.
The rights under Miranda (as well as under the 1st,4th amendments) post 9/11 have been disappearing one SCOTUS decision at a time.

 

First, I'd like to say that in a discussion regarding gun control I don't believe that pro-firearm or anti-firearm sites make a good source, with them being naturally biased. Although I guess fact checking foot work is to be expected when holding any sort of discussion, regardless of the source.

But that's neither here nor there. While it may be a move by some politicians to seem tough on crime by trying to push gun bans, I don't think that's widely the case. I honestly believe that many politicians who push for such legislation either a) genuinely think it will help or b) get caught up in the moment with national tragedies and start putting the cart before the horse. Of course some politicians are just anti-gun ownership to begin with and use such national tragedies as a platform.

But regardless of why politicians do what they do (oh the days upon weeks you could spend pondering that) gun control in the U.S. is severely lacking. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of any type of ban, even of assault and/or fully-automatic weapons. But firearms are just that, weapons. They have been designed with the intention to cause harm and exist only for that purpose. They're dangerous and can cause a lot of harm to oneself and/or the public in the wrong hands (not just criminals, but inexperienced/careless users as well). Right now, in most states, it's pretty easy to get your hands on a firearm, even if you've never used one.

Personally I would be in favor of requiring gun owners and potential gun owners to go through training with local law enforcement or another approved entity and get a license that allows them to purchase/use firearms. We can't really rely on uncle bob to teach his nephew how to shoot or to safely use, clean, and store firearms because he might not really know how himself. Over half of the people I know who own a firearm (and I live in the south, so that's a lot) don't know how to safely store and/or use them.

What I'm getting at is that we need to create a more informed and responsible citizenry rather than just declaring that they can never ever be trusted with any type of firearm.

 

Adding my point to discussion; Regardless of whether guns are banned from public use (like here in Aus), you're of course gonna get some psycho murderer who's hellbent on getting a gun and shooting people, doing exactly that. What the ban on guns' main focus is (from my perspective anyaway), is to cut down on the accidental gun deaths, which it seems to be damn good at doing.

And because I'm paranoid of my wording not being proper ever, just summary... >.>
Psycho murderer: Gonna find a way to get a gun and shoot regardless of laws. Killing being on and of purpose.
Civilians: Most likely to only kill with gun on accident; banning of guns would remove that possibility.

 

Anyone hear about this one gun-nut in my country?
Loves assault rifles.... Killed some cops.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/04/gunman-on-the-loose-in-moncton-reports

This is what happens in Canada when you loosen the gun registry laws.

 

Actually this is what happens when one nut slips through a complicated government system (happen more then you think!) that is more often then not undermanned or is improperly executed. The Canadian Firearms Registry was ill conceived and rampantly ineffective as a tool for LEOs to conduct BGCs just like the NCIC database is here in the U.S. the fact that the system is being scrapped by the Canadian government proves that this form of gun control is a form of false security. Also the guns he had were not "assault rifles" as they were not a select fire or automatic which are totally banned in Canada. We have heavy restrictions on full-automatic weapons, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, and Suppressors all of which are covered under the NFA of 1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National Firearms Act of 1934

Also the number of gun owners in the U.S. has actually risen in the past 30 years (warning pay wall) http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323689204578573763575086702 while the the number of violent crime has actually dropped. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95379 This network is usually very critical to almost hostile to gun ownership but they have given the gun right crowd some of the best evidence to refute their own claims!!!
Accidents involving guns have been also on the decilne. There are, according to the CDC, 308 million people in the United States. That’s 308,745,538. Of those 308 million people, only 600 were accidentally killed with a firearm. That’s a 0.000194% chance that you will be accidentally killed with a gun in any given year. According to the National Safety Council, over 12,000 people die every year simply by falling down.

 

As a Brit, having ceased riding and sipping tea with the Queen and taking a quick breather from boxing and combing my magnificent handlebar mustache, I am far less qualified than all others in this little conversation to talk about the appropriateness of guns in the God-blessed United States. This is how I see it.

A gun is a instrument of death. It has no other function. It exists because people wanted to kill other people faster than bows and arrows would allow. This is not me damning or condoning guns, this is simple fact. And whilst guns can be used for sport, and indeed should be, this does not change the fact that in America, it is legal to own a device that when you press something on it, you can kill someone. I am aware of the Constitution, and the amendment which grants all US citizens the right to bear arms (which when I was younger gave me visions of Americans sprouting grizzly bear paws and just going nuts, which sounds much cooler to me) but I suppose that, fundamentally, the choice is down to you. In Britain, you can walk into a store and (provided you are over 18) purchase a knife, and I imagine you can do the same in America. And if you REALLY want to kill someone, a swift stab to a vital point does the exact same end result as a bullet will. The point made on accidental gun deaths does illustrate another problem, which is that if you banned guns those 600 people would still be alive and kicking. Or might not, depending on circumstance.

If you didn't want to drown in my exaggerated vernacular, a basic summary is I don't have the ability to pass judgment on another country's laws, I am of the opinion that murder is still gonna occur with or without guns, but that banning them would, by virtue of the act itself, render the environment they used to inhabit, safer.

(Unless the undead rise. In which case you can laugh in my face.)

 

Regardless of whether the amount is increasing, decreasing, or staying level; whether it's more or less than some other cause of death; it's still people dying from a largely preventable cause.
Where'd you get those stats from, btw?

 

Illegal drugs make it past borders en mass all the time, whats to say weapons wouldn't if they were banned?

Also I want to point out that firearms are NOT simply instruments of death. A weapon is a tool of fear, and it doesn't always result in bloodshed. For instance it can be used to bend wills, for good or ill.

 

That said, Ella, most people aren't going to go wholesale terrorism unless they REALLY want someone dead. Plus, think about how any object in your house can be used as a murder weapon. It only needs a sharp point or a blunt edge and it could be used to stab or beat someone to death. (Within reason, of course.) If you want, say, a family dead, then yes, a bomb sounds absolutely perfect for the job, better than a gun in fact. But in regard to you just really hating one person and wanting them to die, you aren't going to create a bomb and throw it at them with the massive potential collateral damage and death toll. If a person does that then they are sociopaths, which some people could argue is the kind of person who will shoot someone to death and potentially endanger many more innocent lives.
Either or, I think that the ideal solution would be to have gun sports where the firearms are supplied by the organisation, not brought from home. Just seems a LOT safer to me, but I don't know too much about the whole she-bang. I agree with your main points, gun safety needing to be emphasized in schools, higher gun safety within the home and pressure to avoid them being placed on kids. But you seem to have a vision of guns being banned leading to an army of homicidal Ziggs from LoL. Creating a bomb, unless you really don't care about the consequences, carries a much higher penalty than a stabbing. I might be wrong, might be right, tossed my hat in and bid you goodnight. *Couldn't resist the rhyme*

And Belsfir, tools of fear would be concentration camps, the skull-and-crossbones, the image of the Grim Reaper, a haunted house. From serious to not serious, these are instruments designed to terrify and provoke reactions. A gun CAN be used as a tool of fear, but it can also be used as a doorprop. The purpose of a gun is to kill. That is what it has been designed for and used for.

 

CDC (Centers of Disease Control and Prevention) and the FBI Violent Crime Report the most up to date is 2011 they will have a new one I think in 2016 they do one every 5 years. The background check requirement has been has been in place since I think 1991 or 1993 in the U.S. on all gun purchases baring person to person ones. Gun show dealers even do them then need to provide I.D. to even enter and minor for the most part are barred from handling the merch. To buy a gun from a dealer you need to file a ATF form 4473 and if you pass a BGC wait at least 3 days all part of the Brady Act.

 

Outside of dangerous areas such as wilderness, etc, where it's for survival, a gun doesn't really serve much purpose apart from recreation. Of course there are people such as yourself who completely abide by safety and rules, but there are also a great deal who don't, because let's face it, people are idiots.
Aside from this, it is much more dangerous to users and people in the surrounding area than a great deal of other activities, if not every other activity. When people can die as a direct result of system abuse, that is a reason to "punish everyone". They're simply not needed for survival.

That first part, already what I said; a ban won't stop a psychopath from getting his hands on a gun. The ban is to stop average joes getting their hands on them, which would cut accidental death.

And... that doesn't exactly make it much better... If you need a gun to get your point across, it doesn't sound like you have a very strong point...

Thisity this.

 

Poor souls... rest in peace

 

Two points: The thing I mentioned about sociopaths was to illustrate the fact that if said sociopath was going to do that, they would find ways to achieve that without guns. Two Molotovs, which anyone who's ever played Call of Duty would know how to make. As you said, bombs that have how-to guides online. Hell, anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry. A gun makes doing that whole thing simpler, hence why I advocate their banning. Or at very least, strict relegation.

And secondly... I don't think the rest of the world will descend like hungry vultures the moment America decides to ban guns. My guess on this is that the American mindset is that "We need guns, otherwise our national and personal security is at risk" and that even though we have advanced past the stage where conventional warfare is even an option - we live in a world where men can press a few buttons and destroy the planet - the feeling of protection and security guns provide has not diminished. And another thing, we don't distinguish by nationality - I don't care if you're American and a sociopath, French and a sociopath, European or Asian or Russian and a sociopath, you're still a sociopath. Sociopaths are everywhere in the world. As unnerving as that is. As it stands, if America banned guns, the national community would be interested, but no-one would seriously propose an invasion. There is no country in the world that can conquer America, logistically the idea is preposterous. Don't worry Ella - America is, overall, a safe great country *sees a bald eagle fly overhead patriotically*

 

May I ask, protection against what? Surely a large amount of those seeking to do harm, do so with guns?
And, "protection" also can quite easily result in accidental death of an innocent?

As for the second major point of yours, this pretty much covers it:

And it's guns that allow people to kill with precision, efficiency, and in greater numbers. (Am I the only one completely sick of that quote?...)

 

It seems to me like most of your argumentation is based on the fact that's it's easy to get your hands on guns where you live, but if it wasn't you wouldn't be afraid of somebody coming at your home with a gun.

If there were less guns, police officers would have less work and would arrive faster as well.